Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: February 10, 2023, 05:00:42 am »

Quote
What are the differences  between Middle Platonism and neoplatonism?

Almost similar, both of that philosophical views were corrupted by Aristotelianism and Stoicism which promoting empiricism and moral neutrality, or relativism

Source :

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Platonism

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism
Posted by: guest98
« on: February 09, 2023, 02:22:30 pm »

What are the differences  between Middle Platonism and neoplatonism?
Posted by: christianbethel
« on: February 08, 2023, 05:10:41 pm »

They want people to compete over who can add more unnecessary products into the economy. What we are doing can be interpreted as the opposite competition: we want people to compete over who can remove more unnecessary products from the economy.

They want a competition in complexification. We want a competition in simplification.

There is no indication that Aristotle was Jewish as far as I know. However, he is from Thrace:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Life

Quote
Aristotle was born in 384 BC in Stagira, Chalcidice, about 55 km (34 miles) east of modern-day Thessaloniki.[10][11]

(by no coincidence the same region as Achilles, as our enemies like to emphasize:

http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/western-civilization-late-20th-century-pop-culture/comment-page-2/#comment-170659

Quote
Achilles, the “city destroyer” who is the ultimate symbol of an Indo-European warrior elite that was “ferociously male in its focus, with male gods and a cultivation of violence, with no great attention paid to dwellings or public buildings, but a fascination with weaponry, speed and violence.”[xxv] Even in the world of the Iliad, Achilles’ homeland in Thessaly is further north than that of any other character.

), therefore geographically speaking Aristotle is likely to have more Turanian blood than the Greek average.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian_horseman

Certainly, Aristotle is immensely admired in Judaism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#On_medieval_Judaism

Quote
Moses Maimonides (considered to be the foremost intellectual figure of medieval Judaism)[178] adopted Aristotelianism from the Islamic scholars and based his Guide for the Perplexed on it and that became the basis of Jewish scholastic philosophy. Maimonides also considered Aristotle to be the greatest philosopher that ever lived, and styled him as the "chief of the philosophers".[179][180][181] Also, in his letter to Samuel ibn Tibbon, Maimonides observes that there is no need for Samuel to study the writings of philosophers who preceded Aristotle because the works of the latter are "sufficient by themselves and [superior] to all that were written before them. His intellect, Aristotle's is the extreme limit of human intellect, apart from him upon whom the divine emanation has flowed forth to such an extent that they reach the level of prophecy, there being no level higher".[182]
And then there's Philo of Alexandria (Jew) who corrupted Middle Platonism. So you have the true Platonic philosophy put forth by Plato which was, unsurprisingly, completely defiled after his death by Philo of Alexandria and Maimonides and other Neoplatonists. Never fails.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: August 07, 2022, 10:29:47 pm »

"The liberals say that education can reduce discriminative and bad behaviour."

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/superiority-cannot-be-taught/

And even if education really can improve behaviour (as might be the case for some individuals), that would then only make it harder for us to subsequently distinguish between heritable superiority and learned superiority.

"more humane rather than how our ancestors were lived during pre-colonial era"

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/dietary-decolonization/msg5060/#msg5060

"Even the "woke" movements are easily emerged today"

Yes, today we have woke movements. In the old days we had Gnostic movements. Which are superior? This is the meaningful comparison to make if you want to compare present-day leftists with ancient leftists.
Posted by: guest30
« on: August 07, 2022, 09:52:24 pm »

The liberals say that education can reduce discriminative and bad behaviour. On my opinion, it's proven that our sociological today are not supporting colonialism and slavery anymore. And more humane rather than how our ancestors were lived during pre-colonial era and colonial era... What about that? Even the "woke" movements are easily emerged today
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: August 07, 2022, 09:25:40 pm »

"That's why the refugees and the people who dislike their place of origin tend to move to the democratic West which free and advanced rather than the others. What about that?"

Of course we support people being allowed to move to wherever they want to move to! That's the whole point! We are against any country prohibiting people from emigrating, just as we are against any country prohibiting people from immigrating. No one chose where they were born, therefore everyone should get to choose where they wish to live (and pay taxes to). Anything else is initiated violence.

Our duty is to remove colonial-era influences from formerly colonized countries (to not do so is to knowingly perpetuate the violence initiated by the Western colonial powers). On the other hand, we recognize that many people in these countries will not like this. They therefore should not be forced to contribute their labour to this project. Instead, they should be allowed to emigrate to wherever they feel suits them better. (This also has the side-effect of bringing the population in the formerly colonized countries back down closer to the pre-colonization population, which is what we want anyway.)
Posted by: guest30
« on: August 07, 2022, 08:43:41 pm »

And, the liberals's arguments to defend their ideology is, when the censorship and strict rules implemented. The people being boring and not happy. And that is not empathic. That's why the refugees and the people who dislike their place of origin tend to move to the democratic West which free and advanced rather than the others. What about that?

This is I'm not yet have the answer
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: August 06, 2022, 08:19:36 pm »

They want people to compete over who can add more unnecessary products into the economy. What we are doing can be interpreted as the opposite competition: we want people to compete over who can remove more unnecessary products from the economy.

They want a competition in complexification. We want a competition in simplification.

There is no indication that Aristotle was Jewish as far as I know. However, he is from Thrace:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Life

Quote
Aristotle was born in 384 BC in Stagira, Chalcidice, about 55 km (34 miles) east of modern-day Thessaloniki.[10][11]

(by no coincidence the same region as Achilles, as our enemies like to emphasize:

http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/western-civilization-late-20th-century-pop-culture/comment-page-2/#comment-170659

Quote
Achilles, the “city destroyer” who is the ultimate symbol of an Indo-European warrior elite that was “ferociously male in its focus, with male gods and a cultivation of violence, with no great attention paid to dwellings or public buildings, but a fascination with weaponry, speed and violence.”[xxv] Even in the world of the Iliad, Achilles’ homeland in Thessaly is further north than that of any other character.

), therefore geographically speaking Aristotle is likely to have more Turanian blood than the Greek average.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian_horseman

Certainly, Aristotle is immensely admired in Judaism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#On_medieval_Judaism

Quote
Moses Maimonides (considered to be the foremost intellectual figure of medieval Judaism)[178] adopted Aristotelianism from the Islamic scholars and based his Guide for the Perplexed on it and that became the basis of Jewish scholastic philosophy. Maimonides also considered Aristotle to be the greatest philosopher that ever lived, and styled him as the "chief of the philosophers".[179][180][181] Also, in his letter to Samuel ibn Tibbon, Maimonides observes that there is no need for Samuel to study the writings of philosophers who preceded Aristotle because the works of the latter are "sufficient by themselves and [superior] to all that were written before them. His intellect, Aristotle's is the extreme limit of human intellect, apart from him upon whom the divine emanation has flowed forth to such an extent that they reach the level of prophecy, there being no level higher".[182]
Posted by: guest30
« on: August 06, 2022, 07:37:36 pm »

@90sRetroFan

When we openly declared to against gentrification and control the markets. The liberals say that we are cheating on earning and only complaining not to compete. What the best answer for that?

My answer is we don't want the capitalism and social jealously increasing. But I feel that's still weak arguments

And by the way, how can Aristoteles behave like Jews. I realize that recently. He openly declare scientific racism for the sake of homogenous community. Is he Jewish?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: July 30, 2022, 05:09:06 pm »

Supporters of democracy claim that the majority of the demos will vote for policies which benefit the majority of the demos, and therefore a democracy will implement policies which benefit the majority of the demos. We agree with this.

Colonialism benefits the colonizers.

Therefore a democracy will colonize any country too weak to pose a threat to the colonizing demos.

(As a corollary, democracy will promote invention of machines by the demos, so that other countries without such machines become weaker in comparison and thus able to be colonized without risk.)

"authoritarianism"

Democracy promotes authoritarianism among the demos. This was covered on the main site:

Quote
The essence of this tendency is best described as Western plebian hubris: a refusal to recognize the existence of a few enlightened individuals incomparably superior to everyone else in the same society and who therefore deserve absolute authority as rulers, judges and other arbitrators. ... This plebian hubris was by no means egalitarianism; on the contrary, it merely replaced the qualitative belief in the superiority of high-grade individuals worldwide over low-grade masses worldwide with an ethnocentric belief in the superiority of “white” over “non-white” regardless of grade, implying, for example, precedence of ”white” commoners over even “non-white” royalty, which provided the psychological priming for the uniquely Western phenomenon of colonialism.

""the real democracy""



Posted by: guest30
« on: July 30, 2022, 04:10:13 am »

@90sRetroFan

The liberals say that the colonialism happened not because democracy. And it happened because of authoritarianism. And they also answer with the other arguments that colonialism was not presented "the real democracy". So, what about that arguments?

My current answer is even colonialism still happening during the period of liberalism and democracy in the colonist nations. And only the second world war which made it end, even more quickly, not the democracy. But any other strong arguments?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: July 27, 2022, 11:12:21 pm »

"the liberals more care about the same treatment of people rather than punishment to the people who are voluntary agree to follow a discriminative worldview"

I agree. If you look at:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/ethnotribalism-the-computer-simulation/msg48/#msg48

they are (d). Therefore they are statistically guaranteed to lose against racists who are (c).

If False Leftists had really been effective in opposing racism in the past, racism would not be making a comeback now. Racism returning today proves that everything False Leftists did had at most a temporary effect. Their greatest mistake was to presume (wrongly) that racists can be taught not to be racist, when in reality:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/superiority-cannot-be-taught/

Posted by: guest30
« on: July 27, 2022, 10:47:42 pm »

@90sRetroFan

I recently see about the history of liberalism movements, and it said that oftenly liberalism also resulting in confronting the opposition because of injustice and discrimination. For example, like 1960s counterculture in the United States and Western Europe, and the counter-movements of the "South American" people to the Spanish colonialism.

What about that? My best answer for them is, the liberals more care about the same treatment of people rather than punishment to the people who are voluntary agree to follow a discriminative worldview like Aristotelianism and Homerus princip for example. Any answer other than that?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: July 10, 2022, 07:54:07 pm »

"more suffer to the oppressor, that's not fair. The attack rates must be counter by the same rates."

They learned this from Judaism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye#In_Torah_Law

Quote
In the Hebrew Law, the "eye for eye" was to restrict compensation to the value of the loss. Thus, it might be better read 'only one eye for one eye'.[1] The idiomatic biblical phrase "an eye for an eye" in Exodus and Leviticus (עין תחת עין‎, ayin tachat ayin) literally means 'an eye under/(in place of) an eye' while a slightly different phrase (עַיִן בְּעַיִן שֵׁן בְּשֵׁן, literally "eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth") is used in another passage (Deuteronomy) in the context of possible reciprocal court sentences for failed false witnesses.[8][9][10] The passage in Leviticus states, "And a man who injures his countryman – as he has done, so it shall be done to him [namely,] fracture under/for fracture, eye under/for eye, tooth under/for tooth. Just as another person has received injury from him, so it will be given to him." (Lev. 24:19–21).[8]

This is a materialistic trading calculation. Yet ethical trading must be based on mutual consent. Once one side initiates violence, the two sides are not in a trading relationship any more, therefore to nevertheless continue with trading calculations is to ignore the ethical prerequisites of trade.

In terms of fairness, the only people who deserve to be treated fairly are those who treat others fairly. Oppressors by definition do not treat others fairly. To continue to treat oppressors "fairly" is thus in fact to be unfair to everyone else.

"My answer is we need them to stop their action"

This is a practical duty, which I also acknowledge. But it is separate from the issue of what they deserve. If someone initiated violence in the past but then became paralyzed (thus are guaranteed to never initiate violence again), they still deserve to be punished for the violence they initiated in the past no less than someone else who initiated similar violence but who did not become paralyzed.
Posted by: guest30
« on: July 09, 2022, 08:36:22 pm »

@90sRetroFan

The liberals say that if we oppressed by people, and we seek revenge which give more suffer to the oppressor, that's not fair. The attack rates must be counter by the same rates. For example, if we got a bad words from people even though we not do anything, if we punch and hurt their body, then it's us who are guilty. What about that?

My answer is we need them to stop their action, not make a same response to their interaction to us. Any better answer?